EX  LIBRIS 


BRUCE  GOTTEN 

COLLECTION 

OF 

NORTH     CAROLINIANA 


:i\r\:rj'y^^T 


DISTINCTIVE 

BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES: 

A  SERMON 


DELIVERED    BEFORE    THE    WESTERN    BAPTIST    CONVENTION 
OF  NORTH  CAROLINA,  AT  ENON  CHURCH,  TRANSYL- 
VANIA COUNTY,  OCTOBER   20TH,    1883. 


PUBLISHED  BY  REQUEST  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 


By  JOSEPH  E.  CARTER. 


"  We  afe  His  witnesses  of  these  things." — Acts  5:32. 


RALEIGH: 

EDWARDS,  BROUGHTON  &  CO.,  PRINTERS  AND  BINDERS. 

1883. 


NOTE. 


It  is  thought  best  not  to  encumber  these  pages  with 
marginal  references  to  chapter  and  page  of  such  quota- 
tions as  are  made.  The  author  holds  himself  in  readiness 
and  will  furnish,  if  desired,  to  any  candid  inquirer,  the  book 
and  page  from  which  he  quotes.  Mention  of  the  names  of  cer- 
tain religious  denominations  is  made,  not  to  bring  them  con- 
spicuously or  unpleasantly  before  the  reader,  but  simply  to 
make  known  the  ecclesiastical  complexion  of  those  to  whom 
such  reference  is  made. 

Hendersonville,  N.  C,  Oct.  30th,  18S3. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE. 

Introduction  . . 5 

I.  The   Bible   alone    the  Authority  for   all   Faith   and 

Practice 8 

II.  Private  Interpretation  of  the  Scriptures 13 

III.  Religious  Liberty 14 

IV.  Church  Independency 18 

V.  Church  membership  to  none  but  the  Converted 23 

VI.  The  Baptism  of  Believers  only 26 

VII.  Immersion  only  is  Baptism 29 

VIII.  Restricted  Communion -  37 


INTRODUCTION 


What  do  we  mean  by  Distinctive  Baptist 
Principles  ?  We  mean  those  principles  of  re- 
ligious belief  which  have  distinguished  Bap- 
tists from  those  of  alt  other  ecclesiastical  per- 
suasions in  the  ages  past,  and  which  do  now 
distinguish  them.  But  we  hear  one  say  that 
he — and  his  church  he  thinks — believes  that 
the  "Bible  alone  is  the  rule  of  faith  and 
practice;"  another  declares  that  his  people 
believe  in  "church  independency ;"  another, 
that  he  does  not  believe  in  infant  baptism 
and  that  many  of  his  church  are  fast  giving 
up  the  practice;  and  a  third  asserts  that,  in 
this  country  in  particular,  all  religious  de- 
nominations are  as  much  in  favor  of  religious 
liberty  as  the  Baptists  themselves.  To  the 
first  respondent  the  answer  is  that  he  may 
believe  in  the  "Bible  alone  "as  a  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  but,  perhaps,  if  he  will  investi- 
gate he  will  find  that  his  church  does  not, 
and  that  when  the  test  comes,  what  is  known 
as  "  Church  Authority  "  is  resorted  to,  as  well 


b  INTRODUCTION. 

as  the  Bible,  in  the  matters  of  the  faith  and 
practice  of  his  people.  To  the  other  re 
spondents  let  it  be  said,  the  very  fact  that  re- 
ligious denominations  have  sprung  up  in 
these  latter  days,  who  have  espoused  some  of 
the  distinctive  principles  of  Baptists,  makes 
a  good  showing  for  the  Baptists'  side. 
Still  better  is  it  to  know  that  some  of  them 
have  dropped,  now  and  then,  one  and  another 
of  the  old  errors  against  which  Baptists  have 
always  contended  ;  and  better  still  to  believe 
that  the  influence  of  Baptist  principles  is 
gradually  bringing  the  world  to  the  truth, 
and  that  these  principles  are,  in  God's  own 
way  and  time,  destined  to  conquer  the  whole 
earth.  Be  it  known  that  there  were  times, 
in  the  past,  when  the  principles  set  forth  in 
these  pages  were  held  by  no  people  on  earth 
but  the  Baptists.  Because  some  of  them  are 
now  held  by  others,  it  is  no  less  true  that 
they  are  Distinctive  Baptist  Principles. 


Distinctive  Baptist  Principles. 


We  are  His  ivitnesses  of  these  things. — Acts  5:32. 

No  one  should  undertake  to  set  forth  the 
faith  and  practice  of  Baptists  who  will  not  do 
it  in  a  kind  and  Christian  spirit.  Asperity  in 
controversy  on  religious  subjects,  rather  than 
closing,  generally  widens  the  breach  between 
those  who  differ  on  such  questions.  When- 
ever a  religious  teacher  undertakes  to  con- 
vince those  who  are  not  of  his  faith,  of  the 
truthfulness  of  his  own  doctrines,  he  errs  to 
no  little  degree  when  he  fails  to  observe  this. 

I  trust  that  I  am  before  you,  on  this  oc- 
casion, with  this  spirit.  Should  I  fail  in  the 
good  intention,  it  will  not  be  because  that 
good  intent  is  now  wanting. 

Should  I  be  pardoned  for  expressing  my 
feelings  personally  in  this  connection,  I  will 
substitute  as  my  own,  the  words  of  the  great 
and  good  Alexander  Carson,  with  which  he 
prefaced  his  great  work  on  Baptism  :  "I 
hold  myself  as  much  under  the  law  of  God 
in  embracing  all  the  children  of  Grod,  as  in 


8  DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

forming  the  articles  of  my  creed.  My  recog- 
nition of  all  Christians,  I  found  upon  the 
authority  of  Jesus.  To  set  at  naught  the 
weakest  of  Christ's  little  ones,  I  call  not  illib- 
eral, but  unchristian." 

While  this  is  true,  we  must  claim  our  right 
and  privilege  of  setting  forth  those  views  of 
Scripture  truth  which  have  distinguished 
Baptists  from  all  other  denominations  of 
professing  Christians  in  the  past  ages,  and 
which,  to-day,  are  more  or  less  the  lines  of 
separation  between  our  people  and  those  of 
all  the  world  beside. 

I.  The  Bible  Alone  the  Authority  for  all  Faith  and 
Practice. 

Baptists  have  been  distinguished  in  all 
their  history  as  having  no  creeds,  catechisms 
or  decretals  which  bind  them  by  authority. 

Our  churches  usually  have  "  Articles  of 
Faith,"  which  are  simple  statements  of  what 
they  believe  the  Bible  teaches.  These,  how- 
ever, have  not  been  put  forth  by  an  ecclesi- 
astical authority  which  is  over  the  churches, 
or  which  binds  the  consciences  of  its  mem- 
bers. Some  of  our  churches  have  no  such 
"  articles,"  because    they  find  no  need  for 


DISTINCTIVE     BAPTIST    PRINCIPLES.  9 

them,  referring,  whenever  called  on,  to  the 
New  Testament  as  their  rule  of  faith  and 
practice. 

What  danger  threatens  the  least  depar- 
ture from  this  principle?  History  testifies  be- 
yond all  doubt  and  cavil,  that,  by  the  use  of 
tradition  and  adherence  to  the  syllabi  of 
Popes,  the  decrees  of  councils  and  synods, 
the  acts  of  civil  government — when  the 
King  is  called  "  defender  of  the  faith,"  and 
such  like — the  world  has  been  deluged  with 
false  doctrines. 

In  this  connection  there  is  something  re- 
markable, that  those  "  Fathers  "  of  the  early 
centuries  from  whom  false  teachers  so  often 
quote  in  latter  days,  were  themselves  op- 
posed to  tradition,  and  consequently  held 
our  views  on  this  particular  subject. 

Cyprian,  a  Latin  Father  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, said :  "  God  has  testified  that  we  are  to 
do  those  things  that  are  written;  whence 
have  you  that  tradition?  If  it  be  in  the 
Gospels  or  the  Epistles,  then  let  us  observe  it." 

Cyril,  of  the  fourth  century,  said  :  "  It  be- 
hooveth  us  not  to  believe  the  very  least 
thing  of  the  sacred  mysteries  of  faith  with- 
out the  Holy  Scriptures." 


10        DISTINCTIVE     BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

Jerome,  of  the  fifth  century,  declared : 
"  Those  things  which  without  the  authority 
and  testimony  of  the  Scriptures,  men  invent 
of  their  own  heads,  as  from  Apostolic  tradi- 
tions, are  smitten  of  God." 

You  could  not  better  put  the  views  of  the 
Baptists  on  this  question  than,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  one  of  the  olden  time  martyrs,  who 
said  :  "  I  had  rather  follow  the  shadow  of 
Christ  than  the  body  of  all  the  general  coun- 
cils or  doctors  since  the  death  of  Christ." 

This  is  not  the  time  to  refer,  more  than  in- 
cidentally, to  the  great  evils  which  have 
grown  out  of  a  practice,  contrary  to  Baptist 
principles,  upon  this  subject.  It  will  be 
enough  to  refer  to  the  facts  that  the  Jews 
encumbered  the  written  law  of  God  with 
their  traditions,  and  filled  their  land  with 
false  doctrines  ;  that  since  Christ  came  and 
fulfilled  the  written  law,  the  earth  has  been 
flooded  with  the  false  teachings  of  tradition, 
and  of  the  decrees  of  great  ecclesiastical 
bodies  who  have  assumed  authority  to  de- 
clare what  are  the  doctrines  of  God's  Word. 

The  words  of  the  distinguished  William 
Jay,  who  was  not  a  Baptist,  are  very  forci- 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.        11 

ble  in  this  connection.  He  says:  "A  Jew 
admits  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament 
to  be  of  God,  and  could  you  lead  him  to 
these  only,  you  might  easily  convert  him  to 
Christianity.  But  in  his  case  they  are  sur- 
rounded with  Talmudical  and  Rabbinical 
appendages,  the  errors,  falsehoods,  follies 
and  absurdities  of  which  can  scarcely  be 
conceived.  These  render  Moses  and  the 
Prophets  almost  inaccessible,  or  pervert  their 
meaning;  and  little  can  be  done  unless 
you  separate  the  vile  from  the  precious, 
and  lead  them  at  once  to  the  law  and 
the  testimony.  A  Papist  admits  the  Scrip- 
tures of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to 
be  divine;  and  could  you  contend  with  him 
upon  this  ground  only,  a  victory  would  be 
easily  obtained.  But  he  admits,  along  with 
these,  the  Apocrypha,  tradition,  the  decrees 
of  councils,  and  the  word  of  truth  is  ap- 
proached, if  not  through  these,  yet  in  full 
company  w7ith  them,  and  can  only  "  speak 
as  they  approve.  And  there  are  Protestants 
who  invite  you  into  the  temple  of  Revela- 
tion, but  you  must  enter  leaning  on  Calvin, 
or  Arminius,  or  some  other  interpreter,  who 
is  to  tell  you  how  the  responses  of  the  sacred 


12        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

oracles  are  to  be  taken,  for  you  cannot  be 
trusted  alone." 

Note  this  sentence  :  "  Hence  articles  and 
creeds  and  s}^stems  are  drawn  up  by  fallible 
men,  who  have  no  other  sources  of  informa- 
tion than  ourselves,  and  these  are  to  be  taken 
as  including  all  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints." 

It  has  been  a  wonder  to  those  who  are  not 
Baptists,  to  know  what  a  united  people 
they  have  been  upon  Scripture  doctrines  in 
all  ages  of  the  world.  And  also  the  greatest 
wonder,  that  while  they  have  had  so  many 
of  the  plain  and  unlearned  people  with 
them,  they  have  preserved  the  doctrines  of 
God's  Word,  and  have  held  it  in  such  purity 
up  to  the  present  day.  The  question  has 
been  asked  us :  "  How  can  you  ascribe  this 
more  perfect  knowledge  of  the  Word  of  God 
to  yourselves?"  And  the  answer  has  been, 
"  Our  fathers  were,  for  the  most  part,  plain, 
unlearned  men.  Having  nowhere  else  to 
look,  they  looked  up  in  humility  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  teach  them  the  meaning  of  the 
Word  of  God.  They  had  no  learned  au- 
thorities to  lead  them  astray.     They  min- 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.        13 

gled  in  no  aristocratic  circles  whose  over- 
whelming public  sentiment  might  crush  the 
first  buddings  of  earnest  and  honest  inquiry. 
As  little  children,  they  took  up  the  Bible, 
supposing  it  to  mean  just  what  it  said,  and 
willing  to  practice  whatever  it  taught.  Thus 
they  arrived  at  truth  which  escaped  the 
notice  of  the  learned  and  the  intellectually 
mighty." 

II.    Private  Interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 

This  is  a  part  of  our  faith  which  neces- 
sarily grows  out  of  the  principle  which  we 
have  just  discussed.  And  as  it  involves 
much  which  the  other  question  compre- 
hends, we  need  not  dwell  at  length  upon  it. 
Let  us  be  careful  to  understand  what  we 
mean  by  "  private  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures." We  do  not  mean  that  men  are  at 
liberty  to  think  of  the  Bible  what  they 
please,  and  obey  or  disobey  its  precepts  as 
they  choose.  But  that  each  man  is  bound  to 
use  his  judgment,  and  to  govern  it  accord- 
ing to  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  as  he  un- 
derstands it.  The  right  to  investigate  the 
truth  for  himself  does  not  carry  with  it  the 
right  to  disobey  it  or  to  doubt  it.     God  gives 


14        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

every  man  the  right  to  interpret  his  Word 
for  himself,  and  then  to  act  upon  it  from  an 
honest  conviction.  No  general  church  coun- 
cil can  come  in  and  interpret  it,  and  dictate 
it  to  him. 

A  cardinal  principal  with  Baptists  is,  that  a 
man  is  responsible  to  God,  and  to  God  only, 
for  his  faith  and  practice,  and  not  responsi- 
ble to  Popes  or  councils,  or  decrees,  or  eccle- 
siastical "  standards,"  or  to  civil  govern- 
ments. If  he  errs  and  mistakes  in  his  un- 
derstanding of  God's  Word,  there  is  no 
power  to  force  or  compel  him  to  renounce 
his  errors,  or  to  punish  him  for  not  con 
forming  to  an  established  creed,  although 
heretics  may  and  should  be  excluded  from 
the  Churches  of  Jesus  Christ  for  holding 
false  doctrine. 

III.  Religious  Liberty. 
From  the  second  principle,  just  an- 
nounced, grows  a  third,  which  has  been, 
and  is  to-day,  in  a  great  measure  a  distin- 
guishing principle  of  Baptists — Religious 
Liberty.  Because  this  foundation  principle 
of  Baptist  faith  was  not  held  by  those  who 
were  in  control  of  ecclesiastic  and  civil  gov- 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST    PRINCIPLES.        15 

ernment,  the  world  has  witnessed  in  the 
centuries  past,  and  history  has  written  indel- 
ibly upon  its  pages,  the  disastrous  effects  of 
the  false  idea  that  the  cause  of  religion  de- 
mands what  is  known  as  a  union  of  Church 
and  State. 

The  Greek,  Lutheran,  Reformed,  Presby- 
terian, Congregational,  Episcopalian,  as 
well  as  the  Roman  Catholic,  and  every 
other  Church  organized  previous  to  the 
eighteenth  century,  were  governed  upon 
the  principle  that  the  State  governments 
should  by  taxation  or  otherwise,  support 
the  church,  and  should  enact  laws  to  pun- 
ish those  who  would  not  adopt  the  State  re- 
ligion, and  should  otherwise  exercise  au- 
thority and  control  with  the  church.  As  a 
striking  and  illustrious  example,  witness  the 
celebrated  Concordat  which  was  concluded 
between  the  great  Napoleon  and  the  Pope, 
in  1801.     Some  of  its  provisions  were: 

"  That  Bishops  shall  be  named  by  the 
First  Consul  and  instituted  canonically  by 
the  Pope ;  and  that  before  entering  on  their 
functions  they  shall  take  an  oath  of  fidelity 
to  the  Republic  of  France ;  and  that  Bish- 
ops are  to  nominate  the  under  clergy ;  but 


16        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

these  nominations  shall  not  take  effect  until 
approved  by  the  government." 

Baptists  have  fought  this  monstrous  error 
and  evil  wherever  their  feet  have  trodden 
this  earth.  Those  who  are  not  of  them  tes- 
tify that  Baptists  have  been  the  champions 
of  Liberty  of  Conscience,  the  boon  and  boast 
of  the  Nineteenth  Century. 

In  all  countries  and  among  all  people, 
wherever  the  civil  arm  has  been  raised  to 
cramp  the  conscience  in  matters  of  religion, 
Baptists  have  said :  "  We  are  free-born"  as 
Paul  declared  when  he  asserted  his  Roman 
citizenship.  They  have  looked  into  the  faces 
of  kings  and  parliaments,  and  responded  to 
the  edicts  of  rulers  and  councils,  with  the 
flames  of  persecution  looking  them  in  the 
face,  Whether  it  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God  to 
hearken  unto  you  more  than  unto  God,  judge  ye, 
for  we  cannot  but  speak  the  things  which  we  have 
seen  and  heard. 

When  the  great  reformation  broke  upon 
the  world  in  the  sixteenth  century,  it  did  not 
throw  off  this  terrible  scourge.  Luther  him- 
self scouted  the  doctrines  of  religious  liberty, 
at  that  time  announced  by  the  despised 
Baptists.     "  Had  Baptists  then  been  listened 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST    PRINCIPLES.        17 

to,"  says  one  of  our  able  thinkers,  "  the  Ref- 
ormation would  have  swept  all  Europe." 
Freedom  of  conscience  was  not  accepted  by 
any  of  the  leaders  of  the  Reformed  churches. 
Its  only  defenders  were  those  persecuted  and 
maligned  Baptists. 

The  first  published  confession  of  faith  in 
all  ages  asserting  the  right  of  all  men  to  re- 
ligious liberty  was  by  the  Baptists  of  England 
in  A.  D.  1611. 

What  Baptists  have  done  and  suffered  for 
these  principles  in  America,  is  told  by  the 
history  of  the  Colonial  days;  by  the  old  jails 
of  Virginia ;  by  the  whipping  posts  of  Mas- 
sachusetts; by  the  fines  and  imprisonments 
of  the  courts  of  law;  when,  like  the  "royal 
people"  from  whom  they  have  descended, 
they  wandered  about  in  sheepskins  and  goat- 
skins, being  destitute,  afflicted,  tormented;  of 
whom  the  world  was  not  worthy. 

Gen.  Washington,  John  Locke,  Judge 
Story,  Chevalier  Bunsen,  George  Bancroft 
and  a  host  of  others,  patriots,  statesmen, 
philosophers  and  historians  have  left  their 
record  on  the  pages  of  history  as  to  this  great 
distinguishing  principle  of  Baptists,  and  as 
to  their  grand  achievements  for  the  soul  lib- 


18        DISTINCTIVE  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES. 

erty  of  the  world.  The  glory  of  all  this  is 
that  while  this  boon  is  now  so  prized  over 
great  portions  of  the  earth,  and  while  many 
other  religious  denominations  are  the  advo- 
cates of  it  as  much  as  we  are,  we  are  free  to 
confess,  it  is  nevertheless  the  outgrowth  of 
Baptist  principles,  and  to  those  principles  the 
world  is  indebted  for  its  existence  to-day. 
IT.  Church  Independency. 

No  principle  has  more  distinctly  marked 
a  difference  between  Baptists  and  other  per- 
suasions of  Christians  than  that  of  the  inde- 
pendency of  the  churches. 

There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  "the  Bap- 
tist Church  of  England"  or  the  Baptist 
Church  of  America,  or  of  any  other  nation 
or  country.  Baptist  churches  may  be  any 
and  everywhere,  but  such  a  thing  as  a  gen- 
eral church,  as  is  the  nature  of  other  Chris- 
tian denominations,  is  simply  an  impossi- 
bility with  Baptists. 

With  us  each  church  or  congregation  is 
entirely  independent  of  each  other,  in  all 
that  concerns  its  government.  Each  church 
calls  its  own  minister  and  other  officers,  re- 
ceives  and   dismisses  or  excludes   its  own 


DISTINCTIVE  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES  19 

members,  makes  its  own  rules  for  its  govern- 
ment and  is  a  sovereign  under  Christ  as  its 
head  throughout. 

Our  churches,  of  their  own  accord,  organ- 
ize into  associations,  conventions  and  such 
like,  but  these  are  only  for  fraternal  and 
missionary  purposes. 

Such  a  thing  as  a  Convocation,  Council, 
Synod  or  Conference  clothed  with  legislative, 
judicial  or  executive  powers,  would  be  an  un- 
heard of  thing  as  well  as  an  utter  impossi- 
bility among  Baptists. 

Our  position  on  this  is  based  on  many 
teachings  of  Scripture.  We  find  Jesus  in 
the  18th  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  Paul  in 
the  5th  chapter  of  1st  Corinthians,  laying 
down  the  principles  upon  which  the  indi- 
vidual church  is  to  act  in  matters  of  cor- 
rective discipline.  In  both  these  instances 
the  whole  church  is  the  body  which  is  to  act, 
and  the  body  to  whom  final  appeal  is  to  be 
made. 

When  the  question  of  the  bearing  of  cir- 
cumcision upon  the  converts  to  Christianity 
was  to  be  settled,  and  wise  heads  were  to  be 
consulted,  after  the  apostles  and  elders  came 
together  at  Jerusalem  with  the  church  to 


20        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

consider  the  matter,  we  are  told  that  the  de 
cision  was  by  the  "  apostles  and  elders  and 
the  whole  church."  Even  here  the  indepen- 
dent church  sent  its  letter  of  advice  to  the 
church  in  Antioch  in  connection  with  the 
advice  and  counsel  of  the  apostles  and  elders. 

Paul  tells  the  Romans  of  the  character  of 
a  church  of  Christ  when  he  shows  it  to  be  a 
body  made  up  of  many  members,  putting 
the  prophet,  the  exhorter  and  others  all  on 
the  same  level. 

There  were  no  bishops  or  councils  or  as- 
semblies to  govern  the  church  at  Corinth, 
for  some  of  them  wanted  to  follow  Paul, 
some  Peter  and  some  Apollos. 

The  independent  church  government  of 
the  Galatians  is  seen  when  the  apostle  ex- 
horts them  to  "restore"  any  who  might  be 
"overtaken  in  a  fault"  among  their  mem- 
bership. 

No  one  then,  need  be  surprised  that  Mos- 
heim—a.  Lutheran — the  celebrated  Church 
historian,  speaking  of  the  first  century  of 
the  Christian  Era,  should  put  upon  the 
pages  of  his  standard  work  the  following  : 
"  The  churches  in  those  early  times  were 
entirely  independent,  none  of  them  being 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES.        21 

subject  to  any  foreign  jurisdiction,  but  each 
governed  by  its  own  rulers  and  its  own  laws  ; 
for,  though  the  churches  founded  by  the 
apostles  had  this  particular  deference  shown 
to  them,  that  they  were  consulted  in  diffi- 
cult and  doubtful  cases,  yet  they  had  no 
judicial  authority— no  sort  of  supremacy — 
over  others,  nor  the  least  right  to  enact  laws 
for  them."  Observe  how,  in  another  chap- 
ter, he  shows  the  origin  of  the  centralizing 
power,  and  how  it  went  to  seed  in  the  out- 
come of  the  first  Pope  of  Rome:  "These 
councils,  of  which  we  find  not  the  smallest 
trace  before  the  middle  of  this  (the  second) 
century,  changed  the  whole  face  of  the 
Church,  and  gave  it  a  new  form  ;  for  by  them 
the  ancient  privileges  of  the  people  were 
considerably  diminished,  and  the  power 
and  authority  of  the  bishops  greatly  aug- 
mented. The  humility,  indeed,  and  pru- 
dence of  these  pious  prelates  prevented  their 
assuming,  all  at  once,  the  power  with  which 
they  were  afterward  invested.  At  their  first 
appearance  in  these  general  councils  they 
acknowledged  that  they  were  no  more  than 
the  delegates  of  their  respective  churches, 
and  they  acted  in  the  name  and  by  the  ap- 


22        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

pointuient  of  their  people.  But  they  soon 
changed  this  humble  tone,  imperceptibly 
extended  the  limits  of  their  authority,  turned 
their  influence  into  dominion  and  their 
counsels  into  laws,  and  openly  asserted,  at 
length,  that  Christ  had  empowered  them  to 
prescribe  to  his  people  authoritative  rules  of 
faith  and  manners. 

"  Another  effect  of  these  councils  was  the 
gradual  abolition  of  that  perfect  equality 
which  reigned  among  all  bishops  in  the 
primitive  times.  *  *  *  In  the  mean- 
time the  bounds  of  the  Church  were  en- 
larged, *  *  *  and  the  universal 
Church  had  now  the  appearance  of  one 
vast  republic,  formed  by  a  combination  of  a 
great  number  of  little  states.  This  occa- 
sioned the  creation  of  a  new  order  of  eccle- 
siastics, who  were  appointed,  in  different 
parts  of  the  world,  as  heads  of  the  Church. 
*  *  *  At  length,  ambition,  having 
reached  its  most  insolent  period,  formed  a 
a  new  dignity,  investing  the  bishop  of  Rome 
and  his  successors  with  the  title  and  author- 
ity of  Prince  of  the  Patriarchs." 

Had  Baptist  principles  been  maintained 
and   the   New  Testament    church   govern- 


DISTINCTIVE   BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.         23 

merit  thus  preserved,  the  world  would  never 
have  witnessed  theencroachmentson  church 
independency  and  the  "lording  it  over 
God's  heritage  "  by  bishops  and  popes  and 
ecclesiastical  councils,  such  as  the  history  of 
the  past  and  exhibits  of  the  present  display. 

V.  Church  Membership  to  none  but  the  Converted. 

No  less  do  Baptists  show  their  distinct 
line  of  difference  from  others  than  in  their 
great  distinguishing  doctrine  of  the  spirit- 
ual nature  of  the  churches.  No  person  is 
qualified  to  be  a  member  of  a  Baptist  Church 
who  is  not  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
At  least  that  person  must  profess  to  have 
found  the  pardon  of  sins  by  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We  baptize  one,  not 
in  order  that  his  sins  may  be  remitted,  but 
because  he  professes  that  those  sins  are  al- 
ready remitted.  We  can  find  no  precept  or 
example  anywhere  in  God's  word  where  any 
but  those  who  were  convicted  of  sin  and  born 
again  were  considered  eligible  to  church 
membership.  The  commission  we  have, 
is :  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature  ;  he  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but   he  that  be- 


24        DISTINCTIVE   BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

lievetb  not  shall  be  damned."  Those  after 
whom  Baptists  feel  they  should  look  for 
church  members  are  those  who,  after  they 
are  made  disciples,  can  be  taught  "  to  ob- 
serve all  things  whatsoever"  Christ  has  "coru- 
manded."  Unless  this  great  principle  of 
ours  is  adhered  to,  membership  in  the 
churches  must  be  made  by  baptismal  regen- 
eration or  by  hereditary  membership.  In 
such  cases,  a  jumble  and  confusion  of  in- 
consistent and  contradictory  doctrines  oc- 
curs, which  bewilder  the  mind.  It  has  al- 
ready set  the  whole  Pedobaptist  world  in  a 
muddle.  In  the  times  of  President  Ed- 
wards, in  our  country,  quite  a  hitch  was 
brought  about  in  New  England.  The  chil- 
dren of  those  who  were  church  members  and 
the  children  of  those  who  were  not  church 
members  were  admitted  to  membership  by 
infant  baptism.  Then  persons  who  had 
been  baptized  and  were  of  moral  life  and  de- 
sired to  be  converted  were  admitted  to  the 
church  ;  so  that  it  was  expected  that  every 
respectable  man  in  the  town  would  join  the 
church.  It  was  said  that  at  that  time, 
among  the  Reformed  Dutch  Churches  of 
this  country,  "  every  young  man  at  the  age 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.        25 

of  twenty-one  was  married  and  joined  the 
church  as  a  matter  of  course." 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Quakers  of  the 
United  States,  who  claimed  so  much  for  the 
spirituality  of  their  Church,  have  just  about 
been  rent  in  twain  by  getting  their  churches 
filled  with  hereditary  members,  who  never 
knew  what  it  was  to  experiencj  the  grace  of 
God  in  the  heart. 

If  you  could  draw  infant  baptism  aside 
for  awhile,  this  great  truth  of  the  Baptists 
wTould  shine  more  clearly,  even  in  the 
churches  of  those  who  so  widely  differ  with 
us. 

Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  one  of  the  great  men 
among  the  Congregationalists,  in  a  public 
meeting  said  :  "  The  requisite  qualifications 
for  membership  in  a  church  of  Christ  are, 
personal  holiness  in  the  sight  of  God  and  a 
credible  profession  of  holiness  before  men." 
At  this  another  minister  arose,  and  was 
heard  to  say  :  "  If  you  deny  the  church  mem- 
bership of  baptized  infants  your  Baptist  breth- 
ren have  you  on  the  hip" 

In  the  articles  of  faith  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  it  is  said  that  "  the  visi- 
ble Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of 


26        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

faithful  (meaning  converted)  men,"  and  vet 
the  creed  of  that  Church  requires  that  "  the 
baptism  of  young  children  be  retained  in  the 
Church." 

VI.  The  Baptism  of  Belierers  only. 

Baptists  believe  honestly,  and  with  all  due 
deference  to  the  opinions  of  others,  that  an 
infant  cannot  discern  the  object  and  mean- 
ing of  the  Lord's  Baptiain  any  more  than  it 
can  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  consequently 
the  infant  is  not  a  subject  for  either  ordi- 
nance. They  believe  that  there  is  no  pre- 
cept or  example  for  infant  baptism  in  the 
word  of  God  from  the  book  of  Genesis  to  the 
book  of  Revelation.  They  believe  that  in- 
fant baptism  is  an  outgrowth  of  the  views 
of  baptismal  regeneration  which  obtained  in 
the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era. 
They  hold  that  the  traditions  of  men  in  con- 
nection with  those  false  views  of  the  design  of 
baptism  are  the  foundation  stones  on  which 
infant  baptism  is  built.  They  believe  that 
infant  baptism  necessarily  demands  infant 
membership,  and  that  infant  membership 
destroys  the  spirituality  of  the  church.  They 
further  believe  that  a  church  formed  in  part 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.         27 

of  those  baptized  in  infancy  has  produced 
an  unconverted  and  ungodly  membership 
which  has  allied  itself  with  the  State,  has 
torn  from  the  people  their  religious  liberty 
and  lighted  the  fires  of  persecution  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  world. 

These  and  other  things  honestly  believed 
by  them  on  this  subject,  they  feel  can  be  sus- 
tained by  the  word  of  God  and  the  pages  of 
history. 

To  their  support  on  this  question  men  of 
ripe  scholarship  and  piety  are  fast  flocking 
in  different  parts  of  the  world,  those,  too, 
who  are  not  Baptists  and  never  expect  to  be. 

A  Pedobaptist  writer  of  great  distinction 
has  said  in  a  published  essay,  "Scripture 
knows  nothing  of  the  baptism  of  infants.  There 
is  absolutely  not  a  single  trace  of  it  to  be  found 
in  the  New  Testament." 

One  of  the  great  scholars  of  this  century, 
a  native  and  resident  of  Europe,  who  is  also 
not  a  Baptist,  has  said  :  "  Would  the  Protestant 
church  fulfill  and  attain  to  its  final  destiny  the 
baptism  of  infants  must  of  necessity  be  abolished." 

Dr.  Jacobi,  a  pupil  of  Neander,  said,  "In- 
fant baptism  was  introduced  neither  by 
Christ  nor  his  apostles.    *    *     *    Now,  how- 


28        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

ever,  that   infant  baptism   has  been  intro- 
duced it  is  best  that  it  should  be  retained." 

Rev.  A.  T.  Bledsoe,  one  of  the  distin- 
guished men  of  the  Southern  Methodist  pul- 
pit, said  in  the  Methodist  Quarterly  Review  a 
few  years  ago:  "It  is  an  article  of  our 
faith  that  the  baptism  of  young  children 
(infants)  is  to  be  retained  in  the  church  as 
most  agreeable  to  the  institutions  of  Christ. 
But  yet,  with  all  our  searching,  we  have 
been  unable  to  find  in  the  New  Testament  a 
single  express  declaration  or  word  in  favor 
of  infant  baptism.  We  justify  the  right, 
therefore,  solely  on  the  ground  of  logical  in- 
ference, and  not  on  any  express  word  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles." 

One  of  the  latest  candid  confessions  of 
this  sort  has  been  made  by  an  English 
Churchman,  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury.  He 
says:  "I  must  candidly  and  broadly  state 
my  conviction  that  there  is  not  one  passage 
nor  one  word  in  Scripture  which  directly 
proves  it,  not  one  word  the  undeniable  and 
logical  power  of  which  can  be  adduced  to 
prove,  either  in  any  way  of  fact,  that  in  the 
scriptural  age,  infants  were  baptized,  or  of 
doctrine   that  they   oughtto   be   baptized. 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.        29 

Nor  I  believe  is  there  any  such  direct  state- 
ment to  be  found  in  any  writings  of  the 
fathers  of  the  church  before  the  latter  end 
of  the  second  century  after  Christ." 

Baptists  are  so  strenuous  in  their  oppo 
sition  to  infant  baptism  because  they  know 
there  are  precepts,  examples  and  commands 
in  the  Bible  in  favor  of  believer's  baptism 
and  none  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  and 
that  the  tendency  of  infant  baptism  is  to 
supplant  believer's  baptism,  and  banish  it  from 
the  world,  since  the  universal  baptism  of  in- 
fants would  leave  none  to  be  baptized  upon 
becoming  believers. 

They  appeal  to  church  history  without 
fear  of  failure,  to  prove  that  nothing  but 
believer's  baptism  was  known  for  more  than 
two  hundred  years  after  Christ,  as  the  Bishop 
of  Salisbury  has  testified.  And  they  are 
equally  as  sure  that  infant  baptism  did  not 
begin  until  baptism  began  to  be  regarded  as 
essential  to  salvation. 

VII.  Immersion  only  is  Baptism. 

Baptists  believe  that  the  immersion  of  a 
believer  in  water,  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son  and    Holy  Ghost  is  absolutely 


30        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

essential  to  the  performance  of  a  valid  act  of 
baptism,  and  that  the  use  of  water  in  any 
other  way,  as  a  sacred  rite,  is  without  the 
sanction  of  the  Scriptures.  Among  our 
many  reasons  for  this  will  be  found  :  1.  The 
meaning  of  the  original  Greek  word  ;  2.  The 
example  of  Christ;  3.  The  practice  of  the 
apostles  and  early  churches  ;  4.  The  truths 
taught  by  baptism  as  a  symbol  ;  5.  The  al- 
most uuiversal  consent  of  the  scholarship  of 
the  world  ;  6.  The  concessions  of  those  who 
practice  otherwise ;  and  7.  That  immersion 
was  the  practice  of  all  the  churches  until  the 
thirteenth  century.  These,  all,  compel  to 
our  position  and  leave  on  our  minds  not  a 
trace  of  doubt  that  we  are  right,  and  that 
our  position  is  simply  impregnable.  As  we 
read  the  history  of  the  past  we  understand 
that  the  original  ordinance  was  first  changed 
in  the  third  century,  by  pouring  water  over 
a  sick  man,  lest  he  die  without  baptism  ; 
that  then  they  poured  the  water  over  him 
so  copiously  that  it  icas  looked  upon  as  a  substi- 
tute for  immersion.  The  same  history  tells 
us,  in  the  light  in  which  we  read  it,  that 
after  the  sick    man   was  thus  baptized  an 


DISTINCTIVE   BAPTIST    PRINCIPLES.        31 

effort  set  in  to  substitute  "  pouring  and 
sprinkling"  for  the  good  old  way,  but  that 
it  was  long  withstood  by  both  Popes  and 
councils;  that  it  gained  in  popularity  through 
the  dark  ages,  and  that  in  the  thirteenth 
century  the  Pope  finally  yielded  to  the  pop- 
ular clamor  and  authorized  sprinkling  in  all 
cases.  We  also  know  that  since  thos^  days, 
even  down  to  this day  regret  after  regret  has 
been  expressed  by  good  and  great  men  that 
the  "  old  mode "  was  ever  changed.  We 
also  know  that  the  representatives  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  will  tell  any  one 
who  inquires  of  them  now  that  immersion  is 
the  real  meaning  of  the  word,  and  that  im- 
mersion was  the  original  way  of  performing 
the  rite,  but  that  "the  Church,  in  Her  wisdom, 
saw  fit  to  change  the  mode,  and  that  this 
she  had  a  right  to  cfo."  We  also  learn  from 
the  pages  of  history  that  the  great  Luther 
insisted  on  a  return  to  the  old  mode,  offer- 
ing as  an  argument  that  "  baptism  is  a  Greek 
word  and  may  be  translated  immersion,  as 
when  we  immerse  something  in  water,  that 
it -may  be  wholly  covered.  And,  although 
it  is  almost  wholly  abolished  (for  they  do  not 


32         DISTINCTIVE   BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

dip  the  whole  child,  but  only  pour  a  little 
water  on  it),  they  ought,  nevertheless,  to  be 
wholly  immersed,  *  *         for 

that  the  etymology  of  the  word  seems  to  de- 
mand." Baptists  know  that  the  scholarship 
of  the  Church  of  England,  at  this  time,  is 
almost  altogether  united  in  the  belief  that 
New  Testament  baptism  was  immersion 
only,  notwithstanding  their  practices  to  the 
contrary. 

Upon  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Bap- 
tists' belief,  they  cannot  find  place  for  any- 
thing else  than  immersion  Their  doctrine 
of  a  converted  church  membership,  and  the 
profession  which  the  converted  member 
makes  when  he  is.  baptized,  binds  them 
against  anything  else.  We  believe  that  in 
the  act  of  baptism  the  believer  symbolizes 
his  spiritual  death  and  his  spiritual  resur- 
rection ;  that  he  also  symbolizes  his  total 
defilement  and  his  total  purification ; 
and,  in  addition  to  this,  we  believe  that  the 
same  act  of  baptism  symbolizes  the  power 
and  the  agent  by  which  he  receives  his 
cleansing  and  his  new  life.  And  this  we  be- 
lieve because  we  have  in  our  New  Testament 


DISTINCTIVE   BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.         33 

a  book  called  "Romans,"  and  in  that  book 
a  chapter,  and  in  that  chapter  verses,  which 
are  as  follows :  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many 
of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were 
baptized  into  his  death?  Therefore  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death, 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we 
also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life." 

This  beautiful  and  striking  symbolism  of 
baptism  has  impressed  itself  on  the  minds 
of  reading  and  thinking  men,  in  all  ages  of 
the  world.  As  late  a  writer  as  the  distin- 
guished Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  who  is  not  a  Bap- 
tist, tells  us  how  any  other  view  of  this 
Scripture  than  immersion  obscures  the 
meaning  and  destroys  the  whole  beauty  of 
its  speaking  symbolism.  And  this  is  but  a 
re  echo  of  the  old  writers  in  the  first  centu- 
ries. Cyril,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  in  the 
fourth  century,  said  :  "  For  as  Jesus  assum- 
ing the  sins  of  the  world  died  that,  having 
slain  sin,  he  might  raise  thee  up  in  right- 
eousness ;  so  also  thou,  going  down  into  the 
water,  and  in  a  manner  buried  in  the  waters, 


34        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

as  he  in  the  rock,  art  raised  again,  walking 
in  newness  of  life."  - 

Baptists  believe  that  Christ  intended,  in 
the  institution  of  this  ordinance,  to  show 
forth  in  symbol  these  great  fundamental 
truths  of  Grace,  just  as  he  symbolized 
other  truths  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  They  be- 
lieve that  this  ordinance  of  the  Lord's 
House  is  so  simple  that  the  "  wayfaring  " 
may  not  err  in  the  way;  and  they  hon- 
estly feel  that  the  errors  which  have  sprung 
up,  and  are  conscientiously  believed  by 
many  now,  are  on  account  of  the  uprising 
of  false  doctrines  ;  that,  with  the  New  Tes- 
tament only  in  one's  hand,  no  one  would 
ever  make  a  mistake  about  the  "  mode  "  of 
baptism. 

Baptists  believe  that  baptism  is  one  of 
those  simple  teachings  of  Jesus,  which  is 
easily  understood,  both  in  the  precept  and 
the  example.  They  join  Mr.  Albert  Barnes, 
one  of  the  most  superior  of  Pedobaptist  com- 
mentators, when  he  says,  speaking  of  bap- 
tism : 

"If  it  were  an  element  or  first  principle  of 
religion — if  it  were  presumed  that  any  one 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST    PRINCIPLES.        35 

who  entered  the  church  could  understand 
it — can  it  be  believed  that  it  was  then  so 
perplexing  and  embarrassing  as  it  is  often 
made  now?  Can  it  be  believed  that  a  vast  ar- 
ray of  learning,  and  a  knowledge  of  languages, 
and  a  careful  inquiry  into  the  customs  of  ancient 
times  were  needful  in  order  that  a  candidate  for 
baptism  should  understand  it  f  " 

Baptists  could  not  more  strongly  speak  on 
this  line  than  this  able  commentator  has. 
They  asked  a  similar  question  a  few  years 
ago  with  double  emphasis,  when  Dr.  Dale, 
the  distinguished  Presbyterian  brother  of 
Mr.  Barnes,  wrote  his  "four  ponderous  vol- 
umes," entitled  "Judaic  Baptism,"  "  Johannic 
Baptism"  "Classic  Baptism,"  and  "Christian 
Baptism,"  all  to  convince  the  world  at  large 
that  immersion  is  not  the  baptism  of  the  New 
Testament. 

What  an  impression  is  made  in  witness- 
ing the  baptism  of  a  believer,  especially  on 
one  who  understands  its  symbolic  import! 
A  new  convert,  fresh  in  his  first  love,  may 
tell  us  of  his  putting  off  the  "  old  man  "  and 
putting  on  the  "  new  man  ;"  of  what  Christ 
has  done  for  him,  and  of  what  he  expects  to 


36        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST    PRINCIPLES. 

do  for  Christ;  of  his  buried  sins  and  of  his 
resurrection  hopes ;  but  when  we  see  him, 
silently  going  down  into  the  water,  his  hands 
folded  across  his  breast,  in  the  image  of 
death,  while  his  body  passes  under  the  wa- 
ter of  his  liquid  tomb  ;  and  when  we  see  him 
rise  from  the  flood,  the  water  dripping  from 
his  garments,  as  the  cerements  of  the  grave 
are  to  fall  away  in  the  "  morning  of  the  res- 
urrection," then  He  speaks  to  us  in  eloquent 
language,  which  can  be  understood  in  all 
the  tongues  of  the  peoples  of  the  whole  earth, 
which  cannot  change  with  the  flight  of 
years,  and  which  "  no  oratory  can  rival." 
For  this,  as  for  other  reasons,  Baptists  will 
"  go  down  into  the  water,"  and  they  will 
"  come  up  out  of  the  water  "  until  Jesus  shall 
greet  them  in  the  glories  of  his  Second 
Coming. 

Who  ever  heard  of  a  person  who  left  a 
Baptist  church  to  join  any  other  because  of 
dissatisfaction  with  his  baptism?  Whoever 
heard  of  a  person  living  in  the  fellowship 
of  a  Baptist  church  and  in  mortal  misery  for 
fear  he  had  not  been  properly  baptized  ? 
Who  ever  found  a  church,  of  any  religious 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.        37 

persuasion,  which  would  not  accept  immer- 
sion for  valid  baptism  ?  Where  was  a  Bap- 
tist church  ever  found  which  would  not 
willingly  say  to  an  inquirer  for  the  way  of 
baptism,  "  Take  the  New  Testament  and  see  for 
yourself.''1 

Till.  Restricted  Communion. 

What  is  commonly  known  as  "close  com- 
munion "  is  a  subject  on  which  Baptists  are 
more  grieviously  misrepresented,  more  un- 
charitably thought  of,  and  more  severely 
spoken  against,  than  all  things  else.  Some- 
times the  most  scathing  words  of  denuncia- 
tion are  spoken  against  us,  and  the  most 
unkind  references  to  bigotry  and  Phariseeism 
are  hurled  at  us  with  unsparing  tongues. 
This  is  done,  too,  we  honestly  believe,  by 
some  who,  were  they  to  listen  long  enough 
to  understand  our  views,  would  respect  us  for 
our  integrity  and  self-consistency  rather 
than  denounce  us  so  bitterly. 

Baptists  hold,  as  a  fundamental  article  of 
belief  on  the  question  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
the  same  as  is  held  by  the  great  body  of  those 
we  call  "evangelical  churches."   That  is,  that 


38        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

the  Supper  is  to  be  administered  only  to  those 
who  have  professed  conversion  and  have 
been  baptized.-  We  have  n©  idea  that  the 
Supper  or  the  act  of  baptism  has  anything 
to  do  with  the  bestowment  of  "  sacramental " 
grace  from  God.  These  two  ordinances,  ac- 
cording to  our  faith,  have  equal  authority, 
are  of  equal  benefit,  and  are  both  symboli- 
cal in  their  nature.  Baptism,  to  us,  preaches 
Christ's  burial  and  resurrection,  and  the 
Supper  "  shows  forth  "  the  Lord's  death  "  till 
he  come." 

We  do  not  believe  that  a  place  together  at 
the  Lord's  table  is  the  test  of  Christian  char- 
acter, but  that  regeneration  is  that  test.  A 
true  Baptist  believes  that  there  are  thousands 
and  tens  of  thousands  of  converted  men  and 
women  in  all  the  various  religious  denomi- 
nations, many  of  them,  it  may  be,  better 
men  than  he  is.  On  this  account  it  is  a 
great  injustice  to  a  Baptist  to  say  that  he 
"  unchristianizes  "  those  whom  he  does  not 
welcome  to  the  Lord's  table.  According  to 
our  faith  we  neither  christianize  a  Baptist 
when  we  sit  down  with  him  to  the  table — for 
there  are  many  Baptists  who  partake  of  the 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.        39 

supper  unworthy  of  their  name — neither  do 
we  unchristianize  those  with  whom  we  will 
not  sit  down.  Christian  unity  is  what  God's 
Word  calls  "unity  of  the  faith,"  and  not 
unity  of  the  table. 

>i  But,  we  are  told,  the  world's  great  preacher, 
Mr."  Charles  Spurgeon,  is  an  open  com- 
munionist,  and  that  there  are  many  followers 
of  Robert  Hall  and  other  open  communion 
Baptists  in  England  now.  This  is  true,  but 
it  is  not  against  us,  as  far  as  argument  is  con- 
cerned, nor  is  it  in  favor  of  the  side  of  our 
Pedobaptist  friends.  Because  the  open  com- 
munion Baptists  defend  their  practice  on 
grounds  that  both  ourselves  and  our  Pedo- 
baptist friends  reject,  namely,  that  baptism  is 
not  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  While 
we  deplore  the  existence,  among  a  few  Bap- 
tists, of  open  communionism— a  very  few, 
however— who  need  be  surprised  that  in  our 
denomination,  numbered  by  millions  over 
the  world,  there  should  not  be, at  sometime, 
a  difference  of  opinion  ?  We  feel  sure  that 
those  few  Baptists  are  wrong  in  the  principle 
on  which  they  defend  themselves,  because 
we  have  our  great  denomination  almost  a 


40        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

unit  upon  the  question  of  the  principle,  and 
almost  the  whole  Pedobaptist  world  agreeing, 
also,  with  us.  That  I  ma}7  not  be  rash,  but 
speak  to  the  record,  I  quote  from  the  Inte- 
rior, an  able  Presbyterian  organ,  published 
in  Chicago:  "Close  communion,  in  our 
judgment,  is  a  more  defensible  position  than 
open  communion  which  is  justified  on  the 
ground  that  baptism  is  not  prerequisite  to  the 
partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  He  is 
right.  It  is  clear  that  the  grounds  of  defence 
of  the  few  open  commuuion  Baptists  proves 
too  much  for  our  Pedobaptist  friends. 

The  testimony  of  our  open  communion 
friends,  that  the  unbaptized  have  no  Scriptu- 
ral right  to  sit  down  at  the  Lord's  table  is 
voluminous.  We  select  some.  Dr.  Wall,  of 
the  Church  of  England,  in  his  "  Histoiy  of 
Infant  Baptism,"  says  :  "No  church  ever  gave 
the  communion  to  any  persons  before  they 
were  baptized.  Among  all  the  absurdities 
that  ever  were  held,  none  ever  maintained 
that  any  persons  should  partake  of  the  com- 
munion before  they  were  baptized." 

Dr.  Doddridge,  Independent,  says :  "  As  far 
as   our   knowledge   of    primitive  antiquity 


DISTINCTIVE     BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.        41 

extends,  no  unbaptized   persons  receive  the 
Lord's  Supper," 

Dr.  D.  E.  Griffin,  claimed  by  both  Presby- 
terians and  Congregationalists  as  one  of 
their  great  men,  says  :  "  I  agree  with  the  ad- 
vocates of  close  communion  in  two  points: 
].  That  baptism  is  the  initiatory  ordinance 
which  introduces  us  into  the  visible  church  ; 
of  course,  where  there  is  no  baptism  there 
are  no  visible  churches.  2.  That  we  ought 
not  to  commune  with  those  that  are  not 
baptized,  and,  of  course,  are  not  church 
members,  even  if  we  regard  them  as  Chris- 
tians. Should  a  pious  Quaker  so  far  depart 
from  his  principles  as  to  wish  to  commune 
with  me  at  the  Lord's  table,  while  he  yet  re- 
fuses to  be  baptized,  I  could  not  receive  him  ; 
because  there  is  such  a  relationship  estab- 
lished between  the  ordinances,  that  I  have 
no  right  to  separate  them.  In  other  words, 
I  have  no  right  to  send  the  sacred  elements 
out  of  the  church.  The  only  question,  then, 
is,  whether  those  associations  of  Evangelical 
Christians  that  call  themselves  Churches, 
and  practice  sprinkling,  are  real  Churches  of 
Christ*  in  other  words,  whether  baptism  by 
sprinkling  is  valid  baptism." 


42        DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

Dr.  Hibbard,  good  Methodist  authority, 
in  his  work  on  "Christian  Baptism,"  says: 
"Valid  baptism,  they  (Baptists)  consider  as 
essential  to  constitute  visible  church  mem- 
bership. This  also  we  hold.  The  only 
question  that  here  divides  us  is,  what  is  es- 
sential to  valid  baptism?" 

Now,  while  all  the  above  is  admitted  by 
those  who  are  not  of  us,  we  poor  Baptists  are 
still  berated,  and  have  to  receive  and  bear,  for 
truth's  sake,  hard  blow  after  hard  blow,  be- 
cause we  do  not  recognize  the  baptism  of 
our  brethren  Who  differ  with  us,  and  then 
admit  them  to  the  table.  We  do  not  pro- 
pose to  argue  this  phase  of  the  subject  here, 
but  to  let  those  who  are  not  Baptists  argue 
it  for  us.  One  of  the  leading  minds  in  the 
Pedobaptist  pulpit  of  the  United  States 
has  published  these  words  to  the  world  : 

"A  Pedobaptist  who  believes  that  bap- 
tism is  a  prerequisite  to  communion  has  no 
right  to  censure  the  Baptist  churches  for 
close  communion.  On  this  question  there 
is  a  great  deal  of  pulling  out  of  motes  by 
people  whose  own  vision  is  not  clear.  Their 
course,  on  this  question,  however  mistaken, 


DISTINCTIVE    BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES.        43 

is  certainly  consistent,  and  we  must  yield 
thetn  the  respect  due  to  all  who  adhere 
firmly  to  their  conscientious  convictions." 

The  great  Presbyterian  preacher  of  New 
York  city,  Dr.  John  Hall,  speaking  of  those 
who  would  heap  censure  on  Baptists  for  being 
close  communionists,  says:  " It  is  a  course 
of  doubtful  catholicity  to  raise  a  popular 
cry  against  a  most  valuable  body  of  people, 
who  honestly  defend  and  consistently  go 
through  with  what  they  deem  an  important 
principle." 

The  Chicago  Interior,  already  referred  to, 
says  : 

"  The  difference  between  our  Baptist 
brethren  and  ourselves  is  an  important  dif- 
ference. *  *  *  Their  views  com- 
pel them  to  believe  that  we  are  not  baptized 
and  shut  them  up  to  close  communion. 
*  *  *  To  chide  Baptists  with  bigotry 
because  they  abide  by  the  logical  consequences  of 
their  system  is  absurd.  We  think  they  are 
wrong  in  reference  to  the  mode  and  subjects 
of  baptism,  and  should  not  hesitate  to  take 
ground  against  their  interpretation  ;  but  we 
would  not  be  silent  about  the  interpretation 


44        DISTINCTIVE  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES. 

and  then  charge  them  with  bigotry  for  a 
consistent  adherence  to  their  interpretation.'' 

Conclusion, 

We  solemnly  believe  that  God  has  given 
Baptists  a  special  mission  to  uphold  and 
preach  their  distinctive  doctrines,  so  that,  in 
addition  to  the  other  great  truths  which 
they  propagate,  they  shall,  by  maintaining 
the  gospel  order  of,  first,  faith,  then  baptism, 
and  then  communion,  continually  and  per- 
petually bear  a  solemn  protest  against  infant 
baptism  and  against  every  mode  of  baptism 
which  does  not  symbolize  burial  and  resur- 
rection ;  and  that  they  shall,  through  the  sym- 
bolism of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
preach,  till  the  world  shall  end,  that  whole 
gospel  which  Jesus  intends  those  ordinances 
of  His  House  shall  symbolize. 

As  another  has  said :  "  We  yield  to  no 
other  denomination  in  our  love  for  all 
Christians,  and  in  our  desire  to  unite  with 
them  in  all  Christian  labors  ;  but  the  honest 
truth  is,  we  do  differ  from  them  in  our  views 
of  the  ordinances  of  the  visible  church — not 
from  ignorance,  not  from  bigotry,  not  from 


DISTINCTIVE  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES.  45 

a  spirit  of  exclusiveness — but  because  we 
cannot  help  understanding  our  Master  Jesus 
to  teach  that  none  but  a  believer  ought 
to  be  baptized;  that  baptism  must  symbol- 
ize his  death  and  resurrection,  and  that  bap- 
tism must  precede  communion." 

God  save  us  from  a  spirit  of  boasting.  It 
is  a  fact  that  despite  all  the  contempt  and 
tne  charges  of  "  Phariseeism  "  and  "  bigotry  " 
which  have  been  put  upon  Baptists,  God 
has  wonderfully  honored  and  blessed  them. 
Notwithstanding  in  the  early  history  of  our 
country  they  were  few  in  numbers  and  were 
fined,  whipped,  imprisoned  and  banished 
by  the  persecuting  colonies,  they  now  num- 
ber, in  these  United  States  alone,  over  two 
million  members  of  as  good  and  true  peo- 
ple, as  a  class,  as  ever  walked  the  earth. 

As  I  began,  so  I  close,  with  expressions  of 
kindness  and  good  will  to  the  brethren  of 
other  religious  persuasions.  They  are,  most 
of  them,  conscientious  and  honest  in  their 
convictions.  Though  we  believe  them  to  be 
in  error,  we  respect  and  esteem  them  for 
their  love  to  Christ  and  for  their  Christian 
character.     I  believe  I   can  speak  for  every 


46        DISTINCTIVE   BAPTIST   PRINCIPLES. 

true  Baptist  when  I  say  we  love  the  image 
of  Christ  when  seen  in  any  feature  in  a 
child  of  God,  by  whatever  name  he  may 
be  called.  We  wish  them  well  in  their 
efforts  to  love  and  serve  our  Lord.  And  we 
hope  to  meet  them  in  "  That  Day,"  when, 
as  face  answereth  to  face  in  water,  heart 
shall  answer  to  heart,  and  we  shall  cast  our 
crowns  before  the  throne,  saying,  ii  Thou  art 
worthy,  0  Lord,  to  receive  glory,  and  honor, 
and  power." — Amen. 


THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF 

NORTH  CAROLINA 


THE  COLLECTION  OF 
NORTH  CAROLINIANA 


